From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 34738
Date: 2004-10-17
>It's nonsense that the PIE etymon has anything to do with
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:09:40 +0200, alex
>> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. And how I once said, coincidentaly (!)we have these word in
>>> Romanian with plain velar.
>>> ghiu= viu= alive
>>> ghino= vino= come
>>>
>>> (!) = the usual explanation is not the word "coincidentally" but
>>> "palatalisation" of "fricativ". So due this "palatalisation"
>>> (alteration of the sound, my note here) we got a ... plain velar.
>>> Who wants to accept a such result specialy when the IE roots have
>>> had there an "g"?
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>Which is the nonsense? Do you intend to say there is no "g" in "ghine"? I
>hope you don't.
>> There never was no *g in Mold. ghine = Rom. bineThe sounds are palatal stops, which one can write either as
>> < Lat. bene < PIE *dwene:. This is merely a general
>> soundlaw which affects palatalized /p'/ and /b'/, turning
>> them into /t'/ ~ /k'/ and /d'/ ~ /g'/.
>
>Miguel, there is no "t'" here and no "d'" there.
>> The same happensThey're not velars. They're palatals.
>> with /p'/ in Aromanian (pectu > pieptu -> k'eptu). It
>> follows naturally from the fact that labials and
>> palatalization, for obvious reasons, do not combine well:
>> either palatalization is given up, or the sound shifts to
>> the palatal area.
>
>either the palatalization is given up= ? I understand there is no
>palatalisation anymore, thus the sound remain "p"
>or the sound shifts to the palatal area= ? and becoming what? Anything you
>want but not a velar like "k" or "g".